FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Restructuring of Advisory Service.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute is between the Management of Teagasc and the Chief Agricultural Officers (CAO's). CAO's are each assigned to a county, and manage the service in that county. Management are seeking to restructure its Advisory Service by moving CAO's from a county structure where services are organised by county to one where services are organised on the basis of national programmes, with the amalgamation of some County units.
Issues involved are:
- New reporting arrangements;
- Change in title of Chief Agricultural Officer;
- Assignment of new duties to CAO's ;
- An appropriate remuneration package.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd February, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th March, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1New Reporting Arrangements:
The Union finds the proposal that CAO's would report to a Grade IV instead of a Grade VI as heretofore unacceptable.
2. It is the Union's view that the current reporting relationship is the appropriate one.
3. This new reporting structure would result in a serious diminution in the status of the post of CAO within the overall organisational structure.
Change in Title:-
1.The title CAO is unique to the Agricultural Advisory Service and widely recognised by all associated with agriculture.
2. The title has a recognition and statutory basis.
3. It is widely recognised by other agencies, farm organisations and clients alike.
4. It is viewed by the CAO's that Management's proposals are an unnecessary change in the title of the post to which CAO's were appointed.
Assignment of New Duties:-
1.Management's proposals represent a radical departure for CAO's from their existing agreements and terms and conditions of employment.
2. The Union accept that Management needs to reorganise the Company at all levels on an on-going basis to meet the evolving needs of its clients due to changing policies at National, EU and World Trade level and are prepared to look at ways to improve same.
3. The Union believes that the proposed reduction in County Management's Units will negatively impact on the ability of the organisation to attract client numbers and increase the earning capacity of the organisation.
Remuneration Package:-
1. Management's proposed restructuring of the Advisory and Training Service is significantly in excess of what would be covered by the normal on-going clauses provided for in Sustaining Progress and benchmarking.
2. The 2000 agreement that resulted in the introduction of allowances in the first place was in respect of an agreement to a reduction in the established CAO compliment by 2 posts. The current proposals are far more radical and wide reaching than the proposals in 1999.
3. The Union's claim in respect of management's current proposals is that 23 serving CAO's should have a common allowance of €20,000 payable under the same conditions as the current allowances.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1New Reporting Arrangements:
Prior report arrangements were anomalous and not sustainable in having large numbers of managers at Grade III level report into an Assistant Secretary level post.
2. The proposed arrangements whereby a Grade III reports in line to a Grade IV or Grade V would represent the Public Sector norm.
3.The new structure proposed is essential to deal with normal management functions e.g. development of business planning, PMDS etc.
4. The new reporting arrangements are designed to remove the previously unsustainable situation, whereby one Senior Manager had an excessive number of mangers in a direct reporting relationship.
Change in Title:-
1.The restructuring being put in place by Management is designed to position the Advisory Services to deal with the major issues facing Irish Agriculture and the Company.
2. It is essential that Management communicates clearly to stakeholders and clients that it is adapting to the radically changing circumstances of the market place. An important element of this process will be the re-branding of the service.
3. The new Management title is designed to send this message of newness and adaptation.
4. Retention of the CAO title dilutes the impact of the major changes signalled in the restructuring proposals.
5. The survival of the Advisory Service as a significant player is at issue
Assignment of New Duties:-
1.The proposals outlined in respect of new management structures for the advisory services represented one element of a significant reorganising and rationalisation programme within the Company's Research, Advisory and Training Services.
2. This reogranisation has encompassed all staff, including the claimants within the ongoing change requirements under Sustaining progress and Benchmarking. All other significant elements of this reorganisation are now in place.
3. The rejection of the revised proposals could only be regarded as a refusal to move forward with the implementation of the reorganisation of the Advisory and Training Services.
4. It is Management's position that the original assignments offered were fair and reasonable and it considers that the staff should accept them.
Remuneration Package:-
1.Management rejects the Union claim for an allowance of €20,000 as cost increasing and as such breaches the terms of Sustaining Progress.
2. Management was successful in obtaining Department approval of the application of the existing higher allowance (€11,025pa) currently paid to CAO's.
3. Management is prepared to implement this sanction in the context of full acceptance of the reorganisation proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, recommends as follows:-
(1) New Reporting Arrangements:
The Court recommends that the Company's position is reasonable and that it should be accepted by the Unions' members.
(2) Change in Title:-
The Court is of the view that the new title as proposed reflects the new arrangements and does not dilute the status of the workers. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the new title of Area Manager be accepted by the Union.
(3) Assignment of New Duties:-
The Court, having considered this issue at length, considers that the management proposals are, in general, reasonable and the best way of going forward. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend any change to these proposals.
(4) Remuneration Package:-
Given the level of change involved with the acceptance of a new structure, title and reporting arrangements, the Court feels that the higher allowance, to be paid to all staff covered by this claim, should be increased to €15,000 and accepted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
27th_June, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.